1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to the field of data processing systems. More particularly, the invention relates to a system and method for confirmation or refuting a device location using supplemental sensor and/or location data.
2. Description of Related Art
FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary client 120 with a biometric device 100. When operated normally, a biometric sensor 102 reads raw biometric data from the user (e.g., capture the user's fingerprint, record the user's voice, snap a photo of the user, etc) and a feature extraction module 103 extracts specified characteristics of the raw biometric data (e.g., focusing on certain regions of the fingerprint, certain facial features, etc). A matcher module 104 compares the extracted features 133 with biometric reference data 110 stored in a secure storage on the client 120 and generates a score based on the similarity between the extracted features and the biometric reference data 110. The biometric reference data 110 is typically the result of an enrollment process in which the user enrolls a fingerprint, voice sample, image or other biometric data with the device 100. An application 105 may then use the score to determine whether the authentication was successful (e.g., if the score is above a certain specified threshold).
Systems have also been designed for providing secure user authentication over a network using biometric sensors. In such systems, the score 135 generated by the application 105, and/or other authentication data, may be sent over a network to authenticate the user with a remote server. For example, Patent Application No. 2011/0082801 (“'801 Application”) describes a framework for user registration and authentication on a network which provides strong authentication (e.g., protection against identity theft and phishing), secure transactions (e.g., protection against “malware in the browser” and “man in the middle” attacks for transactions), and enrollment/management of client authentication tokens (e.g., fingerprint readers, facial recognition devices, smartcards, trusted platform modules, etc).
For certain classes of transactions, the riskiness associated with the transaction may be inextricably tied to the location where the transaction is being performed. For example, it may be inadvisable to allow a transaction that appears to originate in a restricted country, such as those listed on the US Office of Foreign Asset Control List (e.g., Cuba, Libya, North Korea, etc). In other cases, it may only be desirable to allow a transaction to proceed if a stronger authentication mechanism is used; for example, a transaction undertaken from within the corporation's physical premises may require less authentication than one conducted from a Starbucks located in a remote location where the company does not have operations.
However, reliable location data may not be readily available for a variety of reasons. For example, the end user's device may not have Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities; the user may be in a location where Wifi triangulation data is unavailable or unreliable; the network provider may not support provide cell tower triangulation capabilities to augment GPS, or Wifi triangulation capabilities. Other approaches to divine the device's location may not have a sufficient level of assurance to meet the organization's needs; for example, reverse Internet Packet (IP) lookups to determine a geographic location may be insufficiently granular, or may be masked by proxies designed to mask the true network origin of the user's device.
In these cases, an organization seeking to evaluate the riskiness of a transaction may require additional data to provide them with additional assurance that an individual is located in a specific geographic area to drive authentication decisions.